R v Morgan

R. v. Morgan

2008 ONCJ 336
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice of the Peace M.A. Cuthbertson | March 13, 2008

Background

On October 9, 2007, around 5:16 PM, about 20 southbound vehicles were stopped at a red light on Imperial Road North in Guelph. David Morgan had positioned his car just before an unregulated railway crossing, with a van driven by Mr. Filewod about 30 feet ahead across the tracks. When the light turned green and traffic began moving, Morgan started crossing the railway tracks in first gear. As he crossed, he looked down the tracks to check for oncoming trains — a prudent safety check given the unregulated crossing.

While Morgan was looking for trains, he shifted into second gear and accelerated. When he turned his attention back to the traffic ahead, he discovered the line of vehicles had unexpectedly stopped again. He braked hard but couldn't avoid hitting the rear of Filewod's van. The collision caused about $2,000 damage to the van and $4,000 to Morgan's car, but fortunately no one was injured. Police charged Morgan with careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.

Issues

1. Whether momentary inattention while checking for safety hazards constitutes careless driving
2. What standard of care applies to drivers facing multiple potential hazards

The Standard for Careless Driving

The court had to determine whether Morgan's actions met the legal threshold for careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act, which requires driving "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway." The prosecution argued that any inadvertent negligence, however slight, should be enough for conviction, relying on cases like R. v. Stellato.

However, Justice of the Peace Cuthbertson rejected this approach, following the Ontario Court of Appeal's guidance in R. v. Wilson that "mere inadvertent negligence, whether of the slightest type or not, will not necessarily sustain a conviction for careless driving." The court emphasized that drivers are not held to a standard of perfection, and the law "does not expect men to be more than ordinary men."

The key test, established in R. v. Beauchamp, asks what an ordinary prudent person would have done in the same circumstances. The court must consider all the conditions the driver faced — road conditions, visibility, weather, traffic, and any other circumstances that a reasonable driver would take into account. Critically, the conduct must be serious enough to "breach of duty to the public and deserving of punishment."

Morgan's Reasonable Response to Multiple Hazards

The court found that Morgan was actually exercising reasonable care by checking for trains at the unregulated railway crossing. He was managing two potential hazards: the traffic ahead and possible oncoming trains. When he looked down the tracks, it was a reasonable safety precaution given the circumstances. The court noted that Morgan "was fundamentally driving with due care and attention" and "acting as any average person might under the circumstances."

When the unexpected happened — traffic stopping again after the light had turned green — Morgan reacted appropriately by braking hard and nearly came to a complete stop. The court characterized his actions as "a moment of inattention" and "an error in judgment," but not the kind of conduct that rises to the level of careless driving requiring punishment.

Key Takeaway

Momentary inattention while reasonably managing safety hazards does not automatically constitute careless driving.

Self-represented defendants should understand that careless driving requires more than just being involved in an accident or making a split-second error in judgment. The court looks at whether your actions were reasonable under all the circumstances you faced, and whether your conduct was serious enough to deserve punishment as a breach of your duty to other road users.